Learners: Grades 7 – 10 (lesson plan can be adapted accordingly) Self: Dave & Laura Context: Year-long, public middle/secondary school Community: High-immigrant/low-economic community and affluent regional school district
PURPOSE Students will be able to: - locate and evaluate online sources for the purposes of developing a debate style argument - synthesize information in order to argue for or against an idea, citing specific evidence - learn and apply aspects of productive in-person and online conversations
Standards: CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.9-10.1 Write arguments to support claims and analysis of substantive topics or texts using valid reasoning and sufficient evidence.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.9-10.1 Sight strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.9-10.8 Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text assessing whether the reasoning is valid and the evidence is relevant and sufficient. Identity false statements and fallacious reasoning.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.9-10.1a Come to discussions prepared, having read and researched material under study; explicitly draw on that preparation by referring to evidence from texts and other research on the topic or issue to stimulate a thoughtful, well-reasoned exchange of ideas.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.9-10.6 Adapt speech to a variety of contexts and tasks, demonstrating command of formal English when indicated or appropriate
TASK/ACTIVITY:
Prior to the beginning of this lesson, students will be taught to critically evaluate sources. They will also be taught how to assess source relevance and appropriateness, verify the author’s credentials and any potential biases the author might bring and to cross-reference other reliable sources to determine accuracy.
We will begin the unit with an exploration of how to identify reputable online sources using the fake activism website devoted to the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus: http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/
Students will explore the various components of this site and deconstruct the elements that are misleading and make the site appear reputable. They will be guided through this deconstruction process using the following handout:
After students have been walked through how to assess sources through the aforementioned activity, they will be taught how to hold a debate, the appropriate language to use during the debate, the different roles/responsibilities participants assume in a debate and what sentence prompts they can use to open their arguments, respectfully communicate their points, refute an opponent’s points and conclude their arguments. See the following Power Point for the debate lesson plan:
After students have been taught how to debate, in the same lesson they will engage in an informal debate (read: non-researched debate based on personal experience and general knowledge claims) on the topic: Should capital punishment still exist. After, students will reflect on what transpired in the debate.
Possible discussion questions for reflection include:
Did students listen to each other? What was the effect? Was respectful language used? If not, what happened as a result? Comment on the overall quality of the discussion when only personal experiences and general knowledge were used to support the claims raised in the discussion?
Students will then be divided into groups of six to engage in their own formal debates, however, this time the debates will occur in an online forum.
The class will be broken up into four smaller groups and assigned one of the following four topics to research: are social networking sites good for our society; is the use of standardized tests improving education in America; should the drinking age be lowered; do violent video games contribute to youth violence?
After the students have been assigned (or chosen) their topics, they will be shown the following website: http://www.procon.org/ and walked through the features of the site. The information and sources provided on this site will be deconstructed for reliability based on the following online reading/research guide that asks students to identify important items like authors' credentials and biases:
Students will then be instructed to take the online reading/research guide and do some research of their own. In addition to the ProCon website, the students will be required to find at least three additional reputable sources to include in their debate.
As a tool to help students, they will be directed to: http://edu.symbaloo.com/mix/debateresearch where webmixes have been created for each topic. Here the students will be walked through how to sign up for Symbaloo and use the site, curating their information in one place.
Once they are in the program, they will be directed to their topic/webmix wall and asked to sign-up and use https://www.diigo.com/ to annotate and highlight their sources and then link their diigo notes to their webmix page in order to share their information with their debate group. Students will use the following screencast to learn about diigo:
Finally, the students will learn how to use the discussion forum tool using the following screencast:
They will be walked through the following model post: http://digiuri.yuku.com/topic/7/Debate-Instructions-and-Model-Post and reminded how to positively and productively conduct themselves in an online forum: what language to use, how to include various sources to support claims and how to structure particular responses.
The groups will also be assigned the following debate roles (either by the teacher or the groups can self-assign):
- Claim checkers: these students check claims are supported by facts and then check the sources (all students) - Moderators: moderate how students positively interact with one another (all students) - Opening arguments (one for each side. These people also need to make 2 rebuttal statements, supported with evidence) - Rebuttal people (these people make 3 rebuttals) - Closing arguments (one for each side. These people also need to make 2 rebuttal statements, supported with evidence)
When the students have chosen their topic and been assigned their roles, they will spend time both in class and at home to research their topic, marking up their web links using diigo and linking their information to the central Symbaloo site in order to share their information, knowledge and resources with their group mates. If there are some more tech. savvy students in the class, a possible extension activity would be to have the students synthesize some of the supporting statistics into an infographic using www.infogr.am/
Students will then spend time crafting their opening arguments. In order to tap into students' out-of-school literacies (and mirror many of the writing restrictions common in the online world), the opening arguments will be limited to 140 characters, as in a Tweet, and posted on the forum.
The online debate schedule will then be as follows:
Over the weekend: Two individual reflections will be written – the first, a written response comparing the face-to-face debate and the online discussion forum debate (the affordances and drawbacks of both). Students will specifically address the following questions and writing prompts: what did you like and dislike about each format when engaging in a deliberative discussion/debate? Students may reference the synchronous aspect of a face-to-face discussion versus the asynchronous aspect of the online format. Students may also discuss how messages can be misinterpreted in an online space where context, voice inflection, body language and so on are removed. They may also reference and deconstruct the informal, unsupported in-class debate they had at the beginning of the unit and compare the structure/the way that debate transpired versus the well-supported online discussion. How did having evidence elevate the quality of the debate, the points raised and the overall interactions?
The second reflection requires the students to use screencast-o-matic. Using the audio/video recording features, students will go to the discussion forum and provide a brief analysis of their debate, their contributions and what transpired. Did students apply the debating and productive discussion format they were taught? Was it effective? Why or why not?
Longterm/cross subject application of these online debates: students will have the skills to positively interact with one another in an online forum, bring in reputable sources to advance the conversation and engage in knowledge generation. CONTENT
Topics: Are social networking sites good for our society; Should the death penalty be used; Is the use of standardized tests improving education in America; Should the drinking age be lowered; Do violent video games contribute to youth violence
Texts: Scholarly articles, online newspapers, scholarly journal articles, original manuscripts scanned into an online database, infographics, images and photos from reputable news sources PEDAGOGY
Work Products: In-class structured debate, online structured debate, students' research and planning notes from the scaffolded guided research.
How Measure: Students will be evaluated both in-class and online. Two rubrics will be provided to evaluate the students on the following…
In-person: 4: Lead the debate by making multiple clear claims that were well supported with specific and thought- provoking detail. Student spoke clearly and respectfully, directly responding to ideas made by fellow classmates.
3: Participated by speaking in class, made a clear claim supported by relevant and accurate detail. Student spoke clearly and respectfully.
2: Student spoke less than twice in the debate, but used supporting details. Student spoke clearly and/or respectfully, but not in the majority of circumstances.
1: Student only made unsupported claims, did not speak clearly and/or respectfully throughout the debate.
On-line: 4: Lead the debate by making multiple clear claims that were well supported with specific and thought- provoking detail. Student wrote clearly and respectfully, directly responding to ideas made by fellow classmates.
3: Participated by writing in class, made a clear claim supported by relevant and accurate detail. Student wrote clearly and respectfully.
2: Student wrote less than twice in the debate, but used supporting details. Student wrote clearly and/or respectfully, but not in the majority of circumstances.
1: Student only made unsupported claims, did not write clearly and/or respectfully throughout the debate.
Digital Literacies in Context: Insights gleaned: It was really interesting to hear these two warning messages from individuals who are immersed in the tech world. They both recognize the affordances and benefits of technology, however, they provide insight into some considerations regarding our current use of technology and how this is impacting our relationships and how we live our lives. Technology essentially allows us to be in two places at once through text, email and social networking tools. These communication tools are effectively re-wiring our brains to react to constant digital interruptions – texts, tweets, status updates, emails – keeping us plugged in and ‘connected’ but sacrificing the quality of the connections. This point particularly resonated with me, as I reflected on the bite-sized, sips of communication I now have with many family members and friends. I never talk on the phone anymore, opting instead to connect through text or the Facebook Message app. Because my communication has morphed into bite-sized sips, I am constantly checking in to see what new particle of information has come through that I need to quickly respond to. It is a challenge to turn this reaction off. After watching Turkle’s presentation, it occurred to me the reason why speaking on the phone now makes me anxious and why I prefer text-based communication. She explains, “a conversation takes place in real time and you can’t control what you’re going to say…texting, email and posting, all of these let us present the self we want to be.” As a result, I think it’s really important, now more than ever, for the education system to teach students how to have meaningful interactions and conversations – both online and off. It’s also important to teach students when and where it is appropriate to respond to incoming notifications in order to move students out of their constant state of present shock.
Connections to the Institute: Learning about new technology tools, like Google Hangouts, that can help facilitate meaningful interactions was important. Also, having the week to develop a thorough and well scaffolded lesson plan to teach students how to have meaningful conversations and interactions was also important. I feel like coming away from the Institute, I am inspired to integrate technology in effective and appropriate ways that can build well-rounded, empathetic and empowered students. I see the future of technology in education and it doesn’t involve student-drones glued to various screens. It includes well-connected individuals who aren’t being programmed by the technology but who are doing the programming.
Generating Questions: Insights gleaned: In order to build students’ critical thinking and analysis skills, it is important to teach students how to ask questions and not just answer them. This also encourages students to take ownership of their learning, making it active, and it shifts teaching pedagogy from transmission to the transformation model. Another insight I gleaned from the readings was that if we are to truly incorporate the inquiry-based approach in the classroom, it is important that the student, not the teacher, controls the inquiry. Having the students pose their own questions instead of answering the teacher’s questions facilitates this.
Connections to the Institute: The Institute was completely grounded in project based and inquiry based learning where we posed our own essential questions and allowed this to direct our learning. I felt fully engaged, inspired and supported in the learning process as I pursued the answer to a question relevant to my work environment. I see huge benefits of teaching students how to ask essential questions to guide their learning after experiencing the process for myself.
Instructional Strategies: Insights gleaned: From these readings, I realized how important scaffolding is in the inquiry learning model and how important reflection is too. In both Coiro's (2011) and Spires' (2012) articles, students were supported with the necessary scaffolding in complex tasks. So even though the learning was learner-centered/driven, it was not a focus-less, free-for-all. I feel that in some of my own previous attempts with the inquiry-learning model I did not provide enough scaffolding, which lead to student frustration, disengagement and/or poor quality of work. Just-in-time information seems to be a key element of effective scaffolding. After reading these articles, I also realized how important reflection is in the learning process. In terms of becoming an effective online reader, Coiro (2011) asserts that it is important for students to constantly reflect and “revisit their purpose while monitoring both their understanding of the content and the relevance to their chosen reading paths” (p. 109). This reflection and analysis helps build critical thinking skills. Another way these skills are built, is through a critical three-level evaluation process identified by Spires (2012) as self-evaluation, peer-evaluation and outside expert evaluation. Students are given the opportunity to revise their work and make it stronger. I can see that including this step has the potential to elevate learning significantly and produce much higher quality work.
Connections to the Institute: During the Institute, scaffolding was provided through the “Cool Tools” and “Hot Topics” sessions. These sessions helped participants learn complex tech tools that could be applied to the lesson plans and various examples of how others have effectively incorporated digital literacies in their teaching environments. We were also supported by our dyad table consultant, our table group and our dyad partners – all of who provided just-in-time information. Furthermore, reflection and revision was a large part of the week at the Institute. The marshmallow challenge set the tone for this at the beginning of the week, emphasizing how important it is to constantly check-in on the progress being made to make sure one is still on the right track and progressing toward the original goal.
Next Steps: Insights gleaned: The overarching takeaway from these two readings is that the adoption of digital content in the classroom is a multi-layered process, involving a variety of factors both within the school and outside it. It involves the administration, the community on a national and international level and access to the necessary technology and tech support. If teachers are to incorporate digital literacies in the classroom, they need to see the connection to the curriculum and how it connects to their own teaching practices. Hobbs’ (2010) article articulates that the point of digital and media literacy is to “simultaneously empower and protect people…we look to [it] to help us more deeply engage with ideas and information to make decisions and participate in cultural life” (p. ix). As a result, in my case, I feel that if teachers are explicitly shown how digital and media literacy is connected to the Ontario curriculum, which emphasizes higher order thinking skills and the creation of engaged and aware citizens, they will be more likely to adopt digital content and tools. Furthermore, if they are shown how to meaningfully adopt technology so that it fits in with their own teaching practices, this will help as well. The focus must be placed on the teaching and not the technology. However, without the proper support, teachers will be significantly less inclined to include technology and the study of digital literacies in their pedagogy -- one of the challenges I often see in the schools in which I work.
Connections to the Institute: Many at the Institute voiced their concerns regarding how they could encourage their colleagues to adopt the technology tools and digital teaching practices they had been exposed to this week. It seems though that an inquiry model that relies on collaborative learning might be the solution. For example, some participants at the Institute who claimed not to have many tech skills or who were nervous about them, produced wonderful digital lesson plans. These individuals were supported by their partners and knowledgeable colleagues. If teachers were paired up into learning dyads in their schools, according to their subject areas or grade levels, they may feel inspired to produce digital lesson plans and supported in terms of implementing them. In this way, the teacher is not on his/her own, but rather part of a team developing the best ways to meaningfully incorporate technology.
How the readings connect to ideas in my graduate studies literature base: These readings all directly connect to the ideas in the literature base with which I am engaged. My focus is in digital literacies and multimodal learning tools, so everything I read supports my work. However, I thought the articles by Coiro (2011), Hobbs (2010) and Spires (2012) were particularly valuable in outlining the importance of incorporating digital literacies. In her book, Hobbs (2010) makes it clear that if people are to navigate and thrive in the current digital culture, there is no other option but to include digital and media literacy in the classroom. Coiro (2011) and Spires (2012) provide specific examples of how to effectively teach online reading and video production using the appropriate scaffolding to support the development of critical thinking and digital skills. In my previous readings, I hadn’t come across articles that were quiet as clear or pedagogically sound. I felt the urgency in Hobbs' (2010) work and I saw very practical ways of incorporating digital literacies that were strongly connected to the curriculum in Coiro's (2011) and Spires (2012) work.
Eliminating the Trolls and Lurkers
THE PROJECT
Dave Quinn & Laura Morrison
Click here for the pre-production plan
Learners: Grades 7 – 10 (lesson plan can be adapted accordingly)
Self: Dave & Laura
Context: Year-long, public middle/secondary school
Community: High-immigrant/low-economic community and affluent regional school district
PURPOSE
Students will be able to:
- locate and evaluate online sources for the purposes of developing a debate style argument
- synthesize information in order to argue for or against an idea, citing specific evidence
- learn and apply aspects of productive in-person and online conversations
Standards: CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.9-10.1 Write arguments to support claims and analysis of substantive topics or texts using valid reasoning and sufficient evidence.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.9-10.1 Sight strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.9-10.8 Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text assessing whether the reasoning is valid and the evidence is relevant and sufficient. Identity false statements and fallacious reasoning.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.9-10.1a Come to discussions prepared, having read and researched material under study; explicitly draw on that preparation by referring to evidence from texts and other research on the topic or issue to stimulate a thoughtful, well-reasoned exchange of ideas.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.9-10.6 Adapt speech to a variety of contexts and tasks, demonstrating command of formal English when indicated or appropriate
TASK/ACTIVITY:
Prior to the beginning of this lesson, students will be taught to critically evaluate sources. They will also be taught how to assess source relevance and appropriateness, verify the author’s credentials and any potential biases the author might bring and to cross-reference other reliable sources to determine accuracy.
We will begin the unit with an exploration of how to identify reputable online sources using the fake
activism website devoted to the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus: http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/
Students will explore the various components of this site and deconstruct the elements that are misleading and make the site appear reputable. They will be guided through this deconstruction process using the following handout:
After students have been walked through how to assess sources through the aforementioned activity, they will be taught how to hold a debate, the appropriate language to use during the debate, the different roles/responsibilities participants assume in a debate and what sentence prompts they can use to open their arguments, respectfully communicate their points, refute an opponent’s points and conclude their arguments. See the following Power Point for the debate lesson plan:
After students have been taught how to debate, in the same lesson they will engage in an informal debate (read: non-researched debate based on personal experience and general knowledge claims) on the topic: Should capital punishment still exist. After, students will reflect on what transpired in the debate.
Possible discussion questions for reflection include:
Did students listen to each other? What was the effect?
Was respectful language used? If not, what happened as a result?
Comment on the overall quality of the discussion when only personal experiences and general knowledge were used to support the claims raised in the discussion?
Students will then be divided into groups of six to engage in their own formal debates, however, this time the debates will occur in an online forum.
The class will be broken up into four smaller groups and assigned one of the following four topics to research: are social networking sites good for our society; is the use of standardized tests improving education in America; should the drinking age be lowered; do violent video games contribute to youth violence?
After the students have been assigned (or chosen) their topics, they will be shown the following website: http://www.procon.org/ and walked through the features of the site. The information and sources provided on this site will be deconstructed for reliability based on the following online reading/research guide that asks students to identify important items like authors' credentials and biases:
Students will then be instructed to take the online reading/research guide and do some research of their own. In addition to the ProCon website, the students will be required to find at least three additional reputable sources to include in their debate.
As a tool to help students, they will be directed to: http://edu.symbaloo.com/mix/debateresearch where webmixes have been created for each topic. Here the students will be walked through how to sign up for Symbaloo and use the site, curating their information in one place.
Once they are in the program, they will be directed to their topic/webmix wall and asked to sign-up and use https://www.diigo.com/ to annotate and highlight their sources and then link their diigo notes to their webmix page in order to share their information with their debate group. Students will use the following screencast to learn about diigo:
Finally, the students will learn how to use the discussion forum tool using the following screencast:
They will be walked through the following model post:
http://digiuri.yuku.com/topic/7/Debate-Instructions-and-Model-Post and reminded how to positively and productively conduct themselves in an online forum: what language to use, how to include various sources to support claims and how to structure particular responses.
The groups will also be assigned the following debate roles (either by the teacher or the groups can self-assign):
- Claim checkers: these students check claims are supported by facts and then check the sources (all students)
- Moderators: moderate how students positively interact with one another (all students)
- Opening arguments (one for each side. These people also need to make 2 rebuttal statements, supported with evidence)
- Rebuttal people (these people make 3 rebuttals)
- Closing arguments (one for each side. These people also need to make 2 rebuttal statements, supported with evidence)
When the students have chosen their topic and been assigned their roles, they will spend time both in class and at home to research their topic, marking up their web links using diigo and linking their information to the central Symbaloo site in order to share their information, knowledge and resources with their group mates. If there are some more tech. savvy students in the class, a possible extension activity would be to have the students synthesize some of the supporting statistics into an infographic using www.infogr.am/
Students will then spend time crafting their opening arguments. In order to tap into students' out-of-school literacies (and mirror many of the writing restrictions common in the online world), the opening arguments will be limited to 140 characters, as in a Tweet, and posted on the forum.
The online debate schedule will then be as follows:
Monday: Opening arguments posted
Tuesday, Wednesday Thursday: Rebuttals
Friday: Closing arguments
Over the weekend: Two individual reflections will be written – the first, a written response comparing the face-to-face debate and the online discussion forum debate (the affordances and drawbacks of both). Students will specifically address the following questions and writing prompts: what did you like and dislike about each format when engaging in a deliberative discussion/debate? Students may reference the synchronous aspect of a face-to-face discussion versus the asynchronous aspect of the online format. Students may also discuss how messages can be misinterpreted in an online space where context, voice inflection, body language and so on are removed. They may also reference and deconstruct the informal, unsupported in-class debate they had at the beginning of the unit and compare the structure/the way that debate transpired versus the well-supported online discussion. How did having evidence elevate the quality of the debate, the points raised and the overall interactions?
The second reflection requires the students to use screencast-o-matic. Using the audio/video recording features, students will go to the discussion forum and provide a brief analysis of their debate, their contributions and what transpired. Did students apply the debating and productive discussion format they were taught? Was it effective? Why or why not?
Longterm/cross subject application of these online debates: students will have the skills to positively interact with one another in an online forum, bring in reputable sources to advance the conversation and engage in knowledge generation.
CONTENT
Topics: Are social networking sites good for our society; Should the death penalty be used; Is the use of standardized tests improving education in America; Should the drinking age be lowered; Do violent video games contribute to youth violence
Texts: Scholarly articles, online newspapers, scholarly journal articles, original manuscripts scanned into an online database, infographics, images and photos from reputable news sources
PEDAGOGY
Instructional Strategies: Guided discovery, Inquiry-based learning, Problem-based learning, Scaffolding, Modeling, Independent research, Collaborative learning, Peer teaching, Active Learning, Think-alouds, Meta-cognitive reflection practices
Tools: http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/
http://www.procon.org/
www.screencast-o-matic.com
http://edu.symbaloo.com/mix/debateresearch
https://www.diigo.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71Bq6wCHDfg&feature=youtu.be
http://youtu.be/8K8vM3OSluU
http://digiuri.yuku.com/
Prompt phrases & guiding questions
Graphic organizers
Computers
Internet
ASSESSMENT
Work Products: In-class structured debate, online structured debate, students' research and planning notes from the scaffolded guided research.
How Measure: Students will be evaluated both in-class and online. Two rubrics will be provided to evaluate the students on the following…
In-person:
4: Lead the debate by making multiple clear claims that were well supported with specific and thought- provoking detail. Student spoke clearly and respectfully, directly responding to ideas made by fellow classmates.
3: Participated by speaking in class, made a clear claim supported by relevant and accurate detail. Student spoke clearly and respectfully.
2: Student spoke less than twice in the debate, but used supporting details. Student spoke clearly and/or respectfully, but not in the majority of circumstances.
1: Student only made unsupported claims, did not speak clearly and/or respectfully throughout the debate.
On-line:
4: Lead the debate by making multiple clear claims that were well supported with specific and thought- provoking detail. Student wrote clearly and respectfully, directly responding to ideas made by fellow classmates.
3: Participated by writing in class, made a clear claim supported by relevant and accurate detail. Student wrote clearly and respectfully.
2: Student wrote less than twice in the debate, but used supporting details. Student wrote clearly and/or respectfully, but not in the majority of circumstances.
1: Student only made unsupported claims, did not write clearly and/or respectfully throughout the debate.
Reflection Assignment, Questions 1 & 2:
Reflection Assignment, Question 3:
Reflection Assignment, Question 4:
Create your own mind maps at MindMeister
Reflection Assignment, Question 5:
Reflection Assignment, Question 6:
Digital Literacies in Context:
Insights gleaned: It was really interesting to hear these two warning messages from individuals who are immersed in the tech world. They both recognize the affordances and benefits of technology, however, they provide insight into some considerations regarding our current use of technology and how this is impacting our relationships and how we live our lives. Technology essentially allows us to be in two places at once through text, email and social networking tools. These communication tools are effectively re-wiring our brains to react to constant digital interruptions – texts, tweets, status updates, emails – keeping us plugged in and ‘connected’ but sacrificing the quality of the connections. This point particularly resonated with me, as I reflected on the bite-sized, sips of communication I now have with many family members and friends. I never talk on the phone anymore, opting instead to connect through text or the Facebook Message app. Because my communication has morphed into bite-sized sips, I am constantly checking in to see what new particle of information has come through that I need to quickly respond to. It is a challenge to turn this reaction off. After watching Turkle’s presentation, it occurred to me the reason why speaking on the phone now makes me anxious and why I prefer text-based communication. She explains, “a conversation takes place in real time and you can’t control what you’re going to say…texting, email and posting, all of these let us present the self we want to be.” As a result, I think it’s really important, now more than ever, for the education system to teach students how to have meaningful interactions and conversations – both online and off. It’s also important to teach students when and where it is appropriate to respond to incoming notifications in order to move students out of their constant state of present shock.
Connections to the Institute: Learning about new technology tools, like Google Hangouts, that can help facilitate meaningful interactions was important. Also, having the week to develop a thorough and well scaffolded lesson plan to teach students how to have meaningful conversations and interactions was also important. I feel like coming away from the Institute, I am inspired to integrate technology in effective and appropriate ways that can build well-rounded, empathetic and empowered students. I see the future of technology in education and it doesn’t involve student-drones glued to various screens. It includes well-connected individuals who aren’t being programmed by the technology but who are doing the programming.
Generating Questions:
Insights gleaned: In order to build students’ critical thinking and analysis skills, it is important to teach students how to ask questions and not just answer them. This also encourages students to take ownership of their learning, making it active, and it shifts teaching pedagogy from transmission to the transformation model. Another insight I gleaned from the readings was that if we are to truly incorporate the inquiry-based approach in the classroom, it is important that the student, not the teacher, controls the inquiry. Having the students pose their own questions instead of answering the teacher’s questions facilitates this.
Connections to the Institute: The Institute was completely grounded in project based and inquiry based learning where we posed our own essential questions and allowed this to direct our learning. I felt fully engaged, inspired and supported in the learning process as I pursued the answer to a question relevant to my work environment. I see huge benefits of teaching students how to ask essential questions to guide their learning after experiencing the process for myself.
Instructional Strategies:
Insights gleaned: From these readings, I realized how important scaffolding is in the inquiry learning model and how important reflection is too. In both Coiro's (2011) and Spires' (2012) articles, students were supported with the necessary scaffolding in complex tasks. So even though the learning was learner-centered/driven, it was not a focus-less, free-for-all. I feel that in some of my own previous attempts with the inquiry-learning model I did not provide enough scaffolding, which lead to student frustration, disengagement and/or poor quality of work. Just-in-time information seems to be a key element of effective scaffolding. After reading these articles, I also realized how important reflection is in the learning process. In terms of becoming an effective online reader, Coiro (2011) asserts that it is important for students to constantly reflect and “revisit their purpose while monitoring both their understanding of the content and the relevance to their chosen reading paths” (p. 109). This reflection and analysis helps build critical thinking skills. Another way these skills are built, is through a critical three-level evaluation process identified by Spires (2012) as self-evaluation, peer-evaluation and outside expert evaluation. Students are given the opportunity to revise their work and make it stronger. I can see that including this step has the potential to elevate learning significantly and produce much higher quality work.
Connections to the Institute: During the Institute, scaffolding was provided through the “Cool Tools” and “Hot Topics” sessions. These sessions helped participants learn complex tech tools that could be applied to the lesson plans and various examples of how others have effectively incorporated digital literacies in their teaching environments. We were also supported by our dyad table consultant, our table group and our dyad partners – all of who provided just-in-time information. Furthermore, reflection and revision was a large part of the week at the Institute. The marshmallow challenge set the tone for this at the beginning of the week, emphasizing how important it is to constantly check-in on the progress being made to make sure one is still on the right track and progressing toward the original goal.
Next Steps:
Insights gleaned: The overarching takeaway from these two readings is that the adoption of digital content in the classroom is a multi-layered process, involving a variety of factors both within the school and outside it. It involves the administration, the community on a national and international level and access to the necessary technology and tech support. If teachers are to incorporate digital literacies in the classroom, they need to see the connection to the curriculum and how it connects to their own teaching practices. Hobbs’ (2010) article articulates that the point of digital and media literacy is to “simultaneously empower and protect people…we look to [it] to help us more deeply engage with ideas and information to make decisions and participate in cultural life” (p. ix). As a result, in my case, I feel that if teachers are explicitly shown how digital and media literacy is connected to the Ontario curriculum, which emphasizes higher order thinking skills and the creation of engaged and aware citizens, they will be more likely to adopt digital content and tools. Furthermore, if they are shown how to meaningfully adopt technology so that it fits in with their own teaching practices, this will help as well. The focus must be placed on the teaching and not the technology. However, without the proper support, teachers will be significantly less inclined to include technology and the study of digital literacies in their pedagogy -- one of the challenges I often see in the schools in which I work.
Connections to the Institute: Many at the Institute voiced their concerns regarding how they could encourage their colleagues to adopt the technology tools and digital teaching practices they had been exposed to this week. It seems though that an inquiry model that relies on collaborative learning might be the solution. For example, some participants at the Institute who claimed not to have many tech skills or who were nervous about them, produced wonderful digital lesson plans. These individuals were supported by their partners and knowledgeable colleagues. If teachers were paired up into learning dyads in their schools, according to their subject areas or grade levels, they may feel inspired to produce digital lesson plans and supported in terms of implementing them. In this way, the teacher is not on his/her own, but rather part of a team developing the best ways to meaningfully incorporate technology.
How the readings connect to ideas in my graduate studies literature base:
These readings all directly connect to the ideas in the literature base with which I am engaged. My focus is in digital literacies and multimodal learning tools, so everything I read supports my work. However, I thought the articles by Coiro (2011), Hobbs (2010) and Spires (2012) were particularly valuable in outlining the importance of incorporating digital literacies. In her book, Hobbs (2010) makes it clear that if people are to navigate and thrive in the current digital culture, there is no other option but to include digital and media literacy in the classroom. Coiro (2011) and Spires (2012) provide specific examples of how to effectively teach online reading and video production using the appropriate scaffolding to support the development of critical thinking and digital skills. In my previous readings, I hadn’t come across articles that were quiet as clear or pedagogically sound. I felt the urgency in Hobbs' (2010) work and I saw very practical ways of incorporating digital literacies that were strongly connected to the curriculum in Coiro's (2011) and Spires (2012) work.
Reflection Assignment, Question 7: